Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Nebraska

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was to keep the article. --  Denelson83  21:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Hahn (Nebraska)

Previously deleted four days ago per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hahn (Nebraska). Article has been rewritten, so it's not technically a repost, and can't be speedied. Campaign ad for candidte for governor, who does not seem to meet WP:BIO. -- Fan-1967 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, this article seems to meet the notability criteria given in WP:C&E. The subject is a major party candidate for the highest position in the State government of Nebraska. He has received considerable Nebraska news coverage, and is an active and visible candidate. The article on the Nebraska gubernatorial election, 2006 exists, and now the notable candidates deserve inclusion in Wikipedia. There exists enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on the candidate which will be proved if the article is allowed to exist for long enough for one to be written. The fact that another person has attempted to fill the hole seems evidence that there is enough interest for the article to exist. This is not an ad for the candidate. I have no affiliation with the candidate. I am simply interested in Nebraska politics and wish there were more information available on Wikipedia about the major players. I plan on flushing out the entries on both the major candidates in this race to help push them beyond stub status. Alienmercy 01:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The first article's author was User:Hahnfornebraska, and the content was copied from the campaign website, so that hardly demonstrated any interest by anyone other than Mr. Hahn's campaign staff. Being a candidate does not, in itself, make someone notable; being elected does. Wikipedia is not a voters' guide. Fan-1967 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I understand being a candidate for office does not necessarily make someone notable, but I truly believe this candidate is. Regardless of what happened before, I am an outside observer who can maintain neutrality. I realize that Wikipedia is not a voter guide, but there are many similar articles on governor, senate, and congressional candidates currently out there that I read out of interest. Most of the currently contested gubernatorial election have articles on the serious challengers. The other major contested statewide race in Nebraska this year is the senate election. The challenger, Pete Ricketts, has a stub which was considered for deletion and was kept. What is the difference between the two? Can any political challengers be considered notable? Alienmercy 01:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Pete Ricketts' article was Proposed for Deletion, a process which anyone can contest and cancel. No one ever pursued a full deletion nomination like this one. No way to know what the result would have been. To answer your question, generally (in my opinion) only challengers who receive significant news coverage outside their state or district would be considered notable. I would also note that, despite being of opposite parties, both Ricketts and Hahn are considered almost guaranteed losers to popular incumbents. Would you still consider either one notable come November 8? Fan-1967 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment In fact, I do believe a loser can be notable. My own anecdotal interests are all I have, but I like to read about election history, and the losers contribute to that history. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see any of those other articles delted, but why has this one been singled out for deletion where so many others in similar situations have not? It seems that there was outside opposition to the last deletion of the article, so I fail to see where the consensus for deletion is. If a significant portion of Wikipedia readers are interested in this article's continued existence, what is the problem? No one is forced to read this article, and I think a borderline case ought to be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed. Alienmercy 02:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• This time of year, articles on candidates are coming through AFD all the time (a new one was nominated about ten minutes ago). I'm sure huge numbers get missed as well. This one was not targeted in particular, except insofar as I still had the title on my watch list from the last AFD. A loser can be notable, not necessarily is notable. Will this one be? He'll be a good sport, run a clean, sincere campaign, and concede graciously on election night. Fan-1967 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• While I disagree, I understand all of your arguments except one: what is the distinction you - Fan-1967 - make between Pete Ricketts and David Hahn. You are certainly aware of it as you were the first to cite him as an example in the discussion of the first deletion. Again, let me reiterate, I am not advocating the deletion of the Pete Ricketts article. Alienmercy 02:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see him as any more deserving of an article than Hahn. I assume he will also concede politely after a sincere campaign. Fan-1967 02:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• And yet, you've chosen this article for deletion but not the other. Why? Alienmercy 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Because the first time, it was a blatant campaign ad, copied from the candidate site, posted by his staff. The second time, it was a reposting of a deleted article. Fan-1967 03:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Except that this one isn't a reposting. I've never even seen the original article. Forgive my naiveness, but is there a way a normal user can view this previous article in question? Alienmercy 03:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Here's the Google cache of it, from August 11. Don't know how often Google refreshes their cache. If you check his campaign site bio, it's pretty much word-for-word. I think the Wikipedia article had been trimmed down by the time that version was cached on 8/11, and originally had that god-awful paragraph about how his "love of the law is matched by his dedication to the democratic principles." Fan-1967 03:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A major party candidate for a governor's seat is notable. Not always; in a state almost completely ruled by a single party with a sacrificial lamb, any old person can get the party's nomination. However, in this case, the guy had other people challenging for the nomination, and looks like he's trying to mount a credible campaign (even if he isn't going to win due to demographics, he's making an earnest try for it, apparently). I would recommend fixing the problems with the article and not arguing that it needs to be deleted because an article was deleted before. Captainktainer * Talk 10:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I did not argue that it should be deleted because it was deleted before. Frankly, I renominated it because my first inclination was to believe that the original author was gaming the system by creating a fresh version. I no longer believe that. I still believe that we should not have articles on people simply because they're candidates. Sooner or later, most of them lose. Fan-1967 15:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Captainktainer, this one looks notable enough for Wikipedia coverage. RFerreira 21:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as Captainktainer and RFerreira, although article needs some work Basement12 23:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per captainktainer this is a major party candidate Yuckfoo 22:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beep Beep (band)

Article for an band of questionable notability. See WP:BAND guidelines. Also not clear that article's sources meet requirements of WP:V. Was previously PROD, but disputed by experienced editor, so comes here for review and consensus. --Satori Son 03:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - It seems they don't quite meet the WP:MUSIC standards. --Daniel Olsen 06:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - only one album on an independent so doesn't meet WP:MUSIC on that front but, as WP:MUSIC is hopelessly outdated and there are copious G-Hits for "Beep Beep"+"Saddle Creek" [1], I think it should be retained. Ac@osr 10:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• The look to be fairly popular; they're on an established label; article's sources are fine. I was kinda hoping the band would sound fantastic, too, but alas, 'twas not to be. Oh, well, three out of four ain't bad. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I mean they're on Saddle Creek. That's a big-time indie label. Sparsefarce 18:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:MUSIC is indeed outdated. And it's Saddle Creek. I think that almost by default, all bands in labels like that should have an article. Might be an indie, but indie as in independent, not as in basement with a cd-burner.

• Delete per nom. I see a lot of dissing of that annoying WP:MUSIC - I realize it's terribly inconvenient when you can't meet it's requirements and the article gets deleted, but that's what we have, folks - change it if you can, but it's the same playing field for everyone in the meantime. Speaking of which, I see no reason to invent new policy/guidelines when the old ones still hold. Band fails WP:MUSIC for lacking charted hits, national tours, multiple non-trivial articles by third parties. "Copious" Ghits described above are confused by a lot of sound effect notations ("beep beep"), download sites, blogs, and music sales, which is why you don't use Google as the sole arbiter for notability. Notability of their label is not to be confused with notability of the band - at best, this suggests the band should be merged with the article about the label. Tychocat 09:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It seems to be on the cusp of meeting WP:MUSIC, but not quite. —Michael Hays 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Intellectualprop2002 00:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet WP:BAND (Cnutvictim 18:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)).
• Keep: this may not meet WP:BAND, but it seems to meet WP:BIO which is more important: I found several articles on them, including from the Boston Phoenix: [2] [3] [4], et cetera. However, someone really needs to clean up this article, it doesn't say jack about its subject; it's barely even a stub. Mangojuice^talk 04:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, please keep in mind that the whole concept of notabilty is NOT a guideline or a policy, only an opinion that is shared by quite some Wikipedians. Especially in cases were there is doubt on whether or not something is "notable", it would be better to choose NOT to delete the article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about Omaha, Nebraska

I'm hereby submitting for inclusion only a handful of the populace of Category:Dynamic lists of songs. If you wanted to nuke this whole category, I wouldn't shed a tear, but these are some of the worst offenders. Without fail, every list is original research and an indiscriminate collection of information. These are just the most indiscriminate of such lists. I'm nominating them separately so you all can judge for yourselves. StarryEyes 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. StarryEyes 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as I don't see who would care ST47 22:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, random. Gazpacho 23:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, well, maybe people from Omaha would care. Still, indiscriminate as all heck. Raggaga 23:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Very indiscriminate, and if we had this, then it would encourage a load of listcruft. We don't need an overflow of List of songs about Eugene, Oregon, List of songs that reference Dora the Explorer, etc. --Gray Porpoise 23:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete include on Omaha page if important. ReverendG 02:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete though having lived in Omaha, I'm amazed as heck that it's referenced in so many songs. It might merit some worth to the Omaha article. 205.157.110.11 08:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.